Ex Parte Shen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 2018

14443831 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/443,831 05/19/2015 10949 7590 09/28/2018 Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP c/o Alston & Bird LLP Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street Suite 4000 Charlotte, NC 28280-4000 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hongrui Shen UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 042933/484076 5284 EXAMINER SPOONER, LAMONT M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2657 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/28/2018 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): usptomail@alston.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HONGRUI SHEN, NAICHEN CUI, LU LIU, and MINGHUI ZHANG Appeal2018-003730 Application 14/443,831 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHN A. EV ANS, HUNG H. BUI, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of Claims 27--46, all pending claims. App. Br. 7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 2 1 Appellants state the real party in interest is Nokia Technologies Oy. App. Br. 2. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 7, 2017, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief (filed February 15, 2018, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed December 15, 2017, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed February 8, 2017, "Final Act."), and the Specification (filed May 20, 2015, "Spec.") for their respective details. Appeal2018---003730 Application 14/443,831 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to a system to determine an action request from a message. See Abstract. INVENTION Claims 27, 35, and 43 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of claim 27, which is reproduced below: 27. A method, comprising: rece1vmg a message; identifying an action request from the message, the action request relates to an action to be performed at a user's device; determining a keyword from the message; monitoring for the requested action to determine a data item relating to the requested action; and associating the keyword from the message with the determined data item. Aihara, et al., Wehrs, et al., References and Rejections US 2012/0259633 Al Oct. 11, 2012 WO 2008/147,919 Al Dec. 4, 2008 Claims 27--46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being obvious over Wehrs and Aihara. Final Act. 3-7. 2 Appeal2018---003730 Application 14/443,831 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejection of claims 27--46 in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Brief. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. With respect to the rejection, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer. We provide the following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 7-11. CLAIMS 27, 29-35, 37--43, 45, AND 46: OBVIOUSNESS OVER WEHRS AND AIHARA. Identifying an action request. Appellants contend Wehrs and Aihara, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach "identifying an action request from the message, the action request relates to an action to be performed at a user's device," as recited in independent claims 27, 35, and 43. App. Br. 7. The Examiner finds Wehrs teaches identifying an action request. Final Act 3 (citing Wehrs, "page 5 -his 'sending' as an action request of a device"; p. 9, ,r 24); see Ans. 9. The Examiner finds Wehrs does not explicitly teach the action request derives from the message, but cites Aihara for that teaching. Final Act. 4. 3 Appeal2018---003730 Application 14/443,831 Appellants contend the disclosure of Wehrs paragraph 24 fails to teach "identifying an action request." App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 1-2 (citing Wehrs, p. 9). However, Appellants fail to respond to the Examiner's findings regarding the teachings of Wehrs, page 5. See App. Br. 8-9. In particular, Wehrs discloses: "[f]or example, if the sending device identifies a friend's name as a keyword, the sending device may also associate the phone number of the friend with the keyword so that the receiving device can easily place a call to that friend." Wehrs, p. 5, ,r 11. This disclosure fairly teaches "identifying an action request." Monitoringfor the requested action to determine a data item relating to the requested action. The Examiner finds the claimed data item reads on Wehrs' teaching of a phone number. Final Act. 3. Appellants contend Wehrs fails to teach the claimed "monitoring" to determine the phone number relative to calling a friend. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3. The Examiner finds Wehrs teaches the claimed monitoring. Ans. 11 ( citing Wehrs, ,r 25) ("The selection of contexts to display may be based on usage patterns ( e.g. frequently selected contexts, learned preferences), the current location, locale (language preference), user profile, and so forth"). We find Wehrs fairly teaches or suggests the claimed "monitoring." CLAIMS 28, 36, AND 44: OBVIOUSNESS OVER WEHRS AND AIHARA. 4 Appeal2018---003730 Application 14/443,831 Appellants contend dependent claim 28 contains further recitations that distinguish it over the prior art. App. Br. 10. Appellants contend dependent claims 36 and 44 contain commensurate recitations. Id. at 11. Appellants contend the cited art fails to teach "wherein when a keyword is determined from the message, a data item matching to the keyword is looked for, and if not found, the requested action is monitored to perform the association," as recited in claim 28. Id. at 10. Appellants argue Wehrs teaches databases of potential keywords, but fails to address the situation where a keyword is not matched. Id. at 11. The Examiner finds this limitation is inherently taught by Wehrs because, for example, where no association for coffee is found, Wehrs teaches to use the monitored action to associate "Starbucks" with the keyword "coffee." Ans. 12-13. Appellants do not reply to this finding of the Answer. We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. DECISION The rejection of Claims 27--46 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) is AFFIRMED. 5 Appeal2018---003730 Application 14/443,831 No time period for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 1.13 6. AFFIRMED2 3 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider whether the claims comport with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. 6